If you are like me, you may have a series of questions about the American Health Care Act that is now being hastily rammed carefully and cautiously rammed through the House using the reconciliation process. Here are some of your questions, answered!

Do Democrats like it? Democrats, seeing everyone from the AMA to hospitals come out vigorously against the bill, issued the fiery tweet that “it desperately needs revision.” This is the kind of ringing denunciation we have come to expect from the Democrats. “Mr. Gorbachev,” as Reagan so stirringly said, “This wall desperately needs revision.”

Republicans became very upset when Obamacare passed after months of discussion in the dead of night and Nancy Pelosi said that people would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it. Why was that okay this time?

This time, Nancy Pelosi was not involved.

Who will be insured under the new system? Instead of the confusing system we have now where LOTS of people have coverage, an estimated MILLIONS fewer people will have coverage, which will be much less confusing.

Do the people passing it know what it does? ABSOLUTELY. Paul Ryan commented that:

“The fatal conceit of Obamacare is that we’re just going to make everybody buy our health insurance at the federal level, young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for older, sicker people. So the young healthy person’s going to be made to buy health care, and they’re going to pay for the person, you know, who gets breast cancer in her 40s, or who gets heart disease in his 50s . . . The people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick. It’s not working, and that’s why it’s in a death spiral.”

Spoken like a man who knows how insurance is supposed to work! Ryan understands that insurance is not about pooling risks and having everyone pay in when young and healthy so that when people fall ill or age, they can take money out. Insurance is something different than that. It is this kind of deep understanding that has made people call Ryan “wonky” and his plans “extremely wonky.” (There is, of course, a charitable reading of this comment: He does, in fact, know what health insurance is supposed to do and just meant that he did not think enough young healthy folk are signing up under the present system, but charitable readings would be a HANDOUT and this bill opposes that.)

Does the bill do NOT enough or TOO MUCH? BOTH.

How does this increase choices?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) explained this nicely. “Americans have choices. And they’ve got to make a choice, and so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They’ve got to make those decisions themselves.” (Later, he amended his remarks: “What we’re trying to say, and maybe I didn’t say it as smoothly as I possibly could, but people need to make a conscious choice, and I believe in self-reliance.”)

What if I cannot afford coverage? Sell your hair and iPhone and hope for the best. Remember, health is really a mind-set. You just have to want it badly enough and be industrious. You should not be living in a giant hut made of lobsters and rose-gold iPhones, as I hear most of the poor do. You should have saved that money for your health. Think of a rainy day, and avoid buying that extra LearJet or annual vacation to the Cape.

Should men have to pay for women’s health? HECK NO, as Rep. John Shimcus (R-(Better Not Get)Ill) observed during a mark-up session, taking issue with the mandate that men had to purchase prenatal care. As he asked, “What about men having to purchase prenatal care? I’m just . . . is that not correct? And should they?” It is a fair cop. What man has ever been BORN? What does he need with the appurtenances of a WOMB? What have men to do with birth or conception? Pregnancy is just a scheme entered into by women so that they can take up unearned seats on public transit.

What will the insurance market of the future look like? All people seeking health insurance will have two options

• Receive a stern lecture on personal responsibility while your home is searched for iPhones and if any are found you are thrown out onto the streets, Fantine-style, and must pay for insurance by selling wasteful bonus organs (hair, teeth, second eyes, second kidneys, appendices). Your children must also register to work as chimney sweeps or we will know that you are just playing the system and don’t really need our help. •Be born wealthy. (If possible, you should choose this option, as it is the most responsible thing to do, and this system rewards responsibility.)

Why is this being called “Obamacare Lite”? Because it is better for your health! Or maybe contains aspartame. Also it’s SHORTER! It is important that bills that pass through Congress be short and easy to read and not contain complex provisions, because otherwise President Trump will get confused and upset when he attempts to sign them and may break something. Speaking of which, the president is supporting it and has called it “wonderful” but also please do not put his name on it because really it’s more Paul Ryan’s baby, and this is yet another form of prenatal care that ought not be subsidized.

Shouldn’t this bill be longer? No.

Who deserves health care?

You can tell if a person is worthy of health care because this person is either very rich or has no ailments, or if the person is poor he is covered in sackcloth, lamenting loudly and has no goods or chattels lest he be accused of luxury. What need hath he of an iPhone? Nay, what need hath he of a dishwasher or tablecloth? Such things are EXCESS, and he must bear the SHAME of his position.

Why hasn’t the Congressional Budget Office scored it? Because we need to keep big government out of it.

How does this give us more options?

The wealthy have the option of paying less in taxes and poorer people have the option of not getting health insurance at all and then being penalized later! Remember, life is about choices. Poverty, like a double-X chromosome, is a preexisting condition that we should not be required to subsidize. It is your responsibility to think of these things and take care to be born a man with a decent amount of independent wealth who would never dare let his income drop below $20,000 a year or purchase a single iPhone in extremity. This is about responsibility, after all. It is not a matter of luck.

Look, this is what insurance means: Paying for yourself when you have a problem, using money you have saved. No one else should be asked to share that risk.

Good luck!

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

Alexandra PetriAlexandra Petri is a Washington Post columnist offering a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day. She is the author of "A Field Guide to Awkward Silences." Follow